Here is a passage from The Theory of Moral Sentiments
by Smith (author of the book The Wealth of Nations in 1776 that started economics) at the Library of Economics and Liberty. Smith emphasizes the
arrogance and conceit of those who think they can arrange society any
way they want. In a separate passage, Smith writes about how this can be
dangerous (that follows this longer excerpt). First, Smith discusses
the man of humanity and benevolence, then the man of system for
contrast. Then I have some quotes that are similar from Campbell (author of the book on mythology The Hero With a Thousand Faces that was one of George Lucas's inspiration for Star Wars).
"The man whose public spirit is prompted altogether by
humanity and benevolence, will respect the established powers and
privileges even of individuals, and still more those of the great
orders and societies, into which the state is divided. Though he
should consider some of them as in some measure abusive, he will
content himself with moderating, what he often cannot annihilate
without great violence. When he cannot conquer the rooted
prejudices of the people by reason and persuasion, he will not
attempt to subdue them by force; but will religiously observe
what, by Cicero, is justly called the divine maxim of Plato,
never to use violence to his country no more than to his parents.
He will accommodate, as well as he can, his public arrangements
to the confirmed habits and prejudices of the people; and will
remedy as well as he can, the inconveniencies which may flow from
the want of those regulations which the people are averse to
submit to. When he cannot establish the right, he will not
disdain to ameliorate the wrong; but like Solon, when he cannot
establish the best system of laws, he will endeavour to establish
the best that the people can bear.
The man of system, on the contrary, is apt to be very wise in
his own conceit; and is often so enamoured with the supposed
beauty of his own ideal plan of government, that he cannot suffer
the smallest deviation from any part of it. He goes on to
establish it completely and in all its parts, without any regard
either to the great interests, or to the strong prejudices which
may oppose it.
He seems to imagine that he can arrange the
different members of a great society with as much ease as the
hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board. He does
not consider that the pieces upon the chess-board have no other
principle of motion besides that which the hand impresses upon
them; but that, in the great chess-board of human society,
every
single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether
different from that which the legislature might chuse to impress
upon it. If those two principles coincide and act in the same
direction, the game of human society will go on easily and
harmoniously, and is very likely to be happy and successful. If
they are opposite or different, the game will go on miserably,
and the society must be at all times in the highest degree of
disorder.
Some general, and even systematical, idea of the perfection
of policy and law, may no doubt be necessary for directing the
views of the statesman. But to insist upon establishing, and upon
establishing all at once, and in spite of all opposition, every
thing which that idea may seem to require, must often be the
highest degree of arrogance."
Adam Smith also says in his book
The Theory of Moral Sentiments:
"The natural course of things cannot be
entirely controlled by the impotent endeavours of man: the current is
too rapid and too strong for him to stop it; and though the
rules which direct it appear to have been established for the wisest and
best purposes, they sometimes produce effects which shock all his
natural sentiments."
The "effects which shock all his
natural sentiments" are the unintended consequences of man trying to
impose his will on society. He can't know all the effects of all the
changes he his bringing to a complex system.
Here is what Campbell has to say. This is from the book
The Power of Myth (some parts might only be in the video version of the interview Campbell did with Bill Moyers upon which the book was base):
Campbell condemns "the man of system." He states this
clearly while speaking of the character Darth Vader from the Star Wars movie trilogy. He is critical of him being an
"executive of a system" who has no humanity. The man of system is a government planner, a bureaucrat who wishes to
impose his own ideals on society. Campbell
mentions what he thinks is a good
Oriental idea: "You don't force
your mission down people's throats." (recall that Smith says the man of benevolence respects individuals, and will not attempt to subdue them by force) Also, "Instead of
clearing his own heart, the zealot tries to clear the world." (Smith refers to "furious zealots" who have contempt for open minded people) Both Campbell and Smith
fear the planner who will force his system on the rest of us. Campbell's
views on this are best expressed in his comments on Darth Vader, the
evil dark lord of the Star Wars movie
trilogy.
"Darth Vader has not developed his own
humanity. He's a robot. He's a bureaucrat living not in terms of
himself but in terms of an imposed system.
This is the threat that we all face today. Is the system going to flatten you out and
deny you your humanity, or are you going to be able to make use of the system
so that you are not compulsively serving it?
It doesn't help to try to change it to accord with your system of
thought. The momentum of history behind
it is too great for anything really significant to evolve from that kind of
action" (this is like Smith saying the current is too strong to be stopped by the impotent endeavours of man)
This is all seen much more
clearly in an exchange between Campbell and Moyers from the second televised
segment of The Power of Myth called
"The Message of the Myth":
Moyers: Do you see some of the new metaphors emerging
in the modern medium for the old universal truths that you've talked about, the
old story?
Campbell: Well, I think that
the Star Wars is a valid mythological perspective for the problem of is the
machine-and the state is a machine (emphasis added)-is the machine going
to crush humanity or serve humanity?
And humanity comes not from the
machine but from the heart.
[As the unmasking of Darth Vader
scene from the movie The Return of the
Jedi is shown, Campbell continues:]
Campbell:
The father (Darth Vader) had been playing one of these machine roles, a
state role; he was the uniform, you know?
And the removal of that mask-there was an undeveloped man there. He was kind of a worm by being the executive
of a system. One is not developing one's
humanity. I think George Lucas did a
beautiful thing there.
Moyers: The idea of machine is the idea that we want
the world to be made in our image and what we think the world ought to be.
[Campbell seemed to agree or at least offered
no dissent to this statement of Moyers-again, Smith says the man of
system wants to impose his own plan on society, very similar to making
the world in your own image]
Campbell put this in a
slightly different way when he also discussed the movie Star Wars:
"Here the man (George Lucas) understands metaphor. What I saw was things that had been in my books but rendered in terms of the
modern problem, which is man and machine. Is the machine going to be
the servant of human life? Or is it going to be master and dictate? And
the machine includes the totalitarian state, whether it is Fascist or
Communist it's still the same state. And it includes things happening in
this country too; the bureaucrat, the machine-man. "What a
wonderful power the machine gives you-but is it going to dominate you?
That's the problem of Goethe's Faust. It's in the last two acts of
Faust, Part Two. His pact is with Mephistopheles, the man who can
furnish you the means to do anything you want. He's the machine
manufacturer. He can manufacture the bombs, but can he give you what
the human spirit wants and needs? He can't.
This statement of what the need and want is must come from you, not from the machine, and not from the government that is teaching you (emphasis added) or not even from the clergy. It has to come from one's own inside, and the minute you let that drop and take what the dictation of the time is instead of your own eternity
(recall Smith says "every single piece has a principle of motion of its
own, altogether different from that which the legislature might chuse
to impress upon it"), you have capitulated to the devil. And you're in
hell.
That's what I think George Lucas brought forward. I admire what he's
done immensely, immensely. That young man opened a vista and knew how
to follow it and it was totally fresh. It seems to me that he carried
that thing through very, very well" (From The Hero's Journey: Joseph Campbell on His Life and Work by Phil Cousineau).
Here is the passage from Adam Smith where he talks about "furious zealots" (also from
The Theory of Moral Sentiments):
"The animosity of hostile factions, whether civil or ecclesiastical, is
often still more furious than that of hostile nations; and their conduct
towards one another is often still more atrocious. What may be called
the laws of faction have often been laid down by grave authors with
still less regard to the rules of justice than what are called the laws
of nations. The most ferocious patriot never stated it as a serious
question, Whether faith ought to be kept with public enemies?—Whether
faith ought to be kept with rebels? Whether faith ought to be kept with
heretics? are questions which have been often furiously agitated by
celebrated doctors both civil and ecclesiastical. It is needless to
observe, I presume, that both rebels and heretics are those unlucky
persons, who, when things have come to a certain degree of violence,
have the misfortune to be of the weaker party.
In a nation distracted by faction, there are, no doubt, always a few,
though commonly but a very few, who preserve their judgment untainted by
the general contagion. They seldom amount to more than, here
and there, a solitary individual, without any influence, excluded, by
his own candour, from the confidence of either party, and who, though he
may be one of the wisest, is necessarily, upon that very account, one
of the most insignificant men in the society. All such people are held in contempt and derision, frequently in detestation, by the furious zealots of both parties. A true party-man hates and despises candour;
and, in reality, there is no vice which could so effectually disqualify
him for the trade of a party-man as that single virtue. The
real, revered, and impartial spectator, therefore, is, upon no occasion,
at a greater distance than amidst the violence and rage of contending
parties. To them, it may be said, that such a spectator scarce exists
any where in the universe. Even to the
great Judge of the universe, they impute all their own prejudices, and
often view that Divine Being as animated by all their own vindictive and
implacable passions. Of all the corrupters of moral sentiments, therefore, faction and fanaticism have always been by far the greatest."
